Americans United - faith-based initiativehttps://www.au.org/tags/faith-based-initiative
enA Tribute To Frank Lautenberg: New Jersey Senator Was Strong Supporter Of Church-State Separation https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/a-tribute-to-frank-lautenberg-new-jersey-senator-was-strong-supporter-of
<a href="/about/people/simon-brown">Simon Brown</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Throughout his career, Lautenberg stood ready to defend First Amendment principles, supporting many of AU’s activities on key issues such as public school prayer, private school vouchers and the “faith-based” initiative. </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/03/senator-frank-lautenberg-obit/2384125/">died early this morning</a>, and with his death, the last of a generation has passed from the U.S. Senate. At 89, he had been the oldest member of the upper chamber and the last to have served in the Second World War.</p><p>Lautenberg is perhaps best known as a staunch advocate for public safety, but he also was a stalwart supporter of something else: the wall of separation between church and state. Throughout his career, he stood ready to defend First Amendment principles, supporting many of AU’s activities on key issues such as public school prayer, private school vouchers and the “faith-based” initiative.</p><p>Back in 1984, for example, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/16/nyregion/5-senators-oppose-school-prayer-measure.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/L/Lautenberg,%20Frank%20R.&amp;pagewanted=1">Lautenberg opposed President Ronald Reagan’s constitutional amendment</a> that would have permitted official prayer in public schools. <em>The New York Times </em>said senators like him received countless phone calls and letters asking that they support the amendment, but he would not be swayed.</p><p>Lautenberg told <em>The Times</em>: “I recognize the importance of prayer in individual, family and community life. For many, it is an integral part of each day and enriches life. But prayer is an intensely personal experience. It is not something that can or should be prescribed by government. Many religious leaders have expressed to me their view that religious practices must stay private, without intervention by public offices or even peers.”</p><p>He also explained that truly voluntary student prayer is already broadly protected.</p><p>“The Constitution,” he said, “now protects the child who wants to pray before, during or after school. Personal prayer is exactly what the First Amendment guarantees. It is for these reasons that I cannot support any of the present proposals for the Senate to amend the Constitution.”</p><p>The Reagan amendment fell 11 votes short of the two-thirds needed to pass, with 18 Republicans (including “Mr. Conservative” Barry Goldwater) joining 26 Democrats to defeat the measure.</p><p>That was just one of several instances in which Lautenberg took an unpopular stand because it was the right thing to do.</p><p>In 2003, he spoke out against invidious aspects of the “faith-based” initiative, slamming an executive order issued by President George W. Bush that allowed publicly funded religious charities to engage in discriminatory hiring. He said this action “should trouble Americans who care deeply about civil justice and equality.”</p><p>Argued Lautenberg, “[A] policy that says ‘Catholics need not apply’ should never, ever be funded by the Federal Government. If a religious group wants to restrict employment with their own money, that is their business, but they should not be able to discriminate in staffing up government programs paid for with public dollars, tax dollars.”</p><p>Lautenberg could be counted on to oppose school vouchers, too, <a href="https://www.au.org/church-state/april-2010-church-state/au-bulletin/us-senate-votes-against-school-vouchers?__utma=1.791044345.1360361050.1370270349.1370272171.157&amp;__utmb=1.9.9.1370273663424&amp;__utmc=1&amp;__utmx=-&amp;__utmz=1.1363966992.67.2.utmcsr=au.org|utmccn=%28referral%29|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/search/site/politicking&amp;__utmv=-&amp;__utmk=109622405">including in 2010 when he voted against reauthorization of the Washington, D.C., voucher program</a>. </p><p>He also stood for separation on some lower-profile matters.</p><p>In 1998, he <a href="https://www.au.org/church-state/may-1999-church-state/featured/the-ten-commandments-crusade">added a safeguard to a Senate resolution</a> that lauded the Ten Commandments and urged its display. The non-binding resolution, which was sponsored by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), was sure to pass in the GOP-dominated upper chamber of Congress so Lautenberg worked to minimize the damage.</p><p>The Sessions proposal declared that the Commandments “set forth a code of moral conduct, observance of which is acknowledged to promote respect for our system of laws and the good of society....” It also urged display of the Decalogue “in the Supreme Court, the Capitol building, the White House, and other government offices and courthouses across the nation...<em>as long as it is consistent with the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.” </em>[emphasis added]</p><p>The italicized phrase was not part of the original measure and was only added at Lautenberg’s insistence. He threatened to open up a full debate on the Sessions proposal if the language were not added, so Sessions reluctantly agreed to the change.</p><p>The next year, Lautenberg was one of just 13 senators to vote against a measure proposed in the wake of the Columbine shootings that was <a href="https://www.au.org/media/press-releases/americans-united-criticizes-senate-passage-of-school-prayer-and-religious">designed to promote official worship and religious symbols in public schools</a> where slayings occur.</p><p>Lautenberg also showed he wasn’t afraid to stand up to leaders of the Religious Right. In 2005, TV preacher <a href="https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/robertson-redux-pat-owes-no-apology-for-radical-statements?__utma=1.791044345.1360361050.1370270349.1370272171.157&amp;__utmb=1.15.9.1370273663424&amp;__utmc=1&amp;__utmx=-&amp;__utmz=1.1363966992.67.2.utmcsr=au.org|utmccn=%28referral%29|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/search/site/politicking&amp;__utmv=-&amp;__utmk=112842500">Pat Robertson said federal judges are a greater threat to America than the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001</a>. That didn’t sit well with Lautenberg, who fired back in a letter to Robertson demanding that he apologize.</p><p><strong>“</strong>It was shocking to hear your cavalier dismissal of the atrocious 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon by describing them as ‘a few bearded terrorists who fly planes into buildings,’” Lautenberg wrote.</p><p>(Robertson refused to apologize, but that’s standard operating procedure for Brother Pat.)</p><p>That same year, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) invited “Christian nation” advocate and bogus historian David Barton <a href="https://www.au.org/church-state/may-2005-church-state/people-events/senate-majority-leader-invites-8216christian?__utma=1.791044345.1360361050.1370270349.1370272171.157&amp;__utmb=1.16.9.1370273663424&amp;__utmc=1&amp;__utmx=-&amp;__utmz=1.1363966992.67.2.utmcsr=au.org|utmccn=%28referral%29|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/search/site/politicking&amp;__utmv=-&amp;__utmk=46837927">to lead senators on a tour of the U.S. Capitol</a>. Lautenberg was none too pleased, and he let his opinion be known on the Senate floor.</p><p>“[Barton] intends to prove that the separation of church and state is a myth, and that America’s Founders intended for the United States to be a Christian nation,” he warned.</p><p>He called on Frist to drop the tour, and in response Frist decided on a scaled-back version in which only he and his wife roamed the capitol with the faux scholar.</p><p>It is clear that Lautenberg wasn’t the type to simply lean with the prevailing political winds, and that’s something that those who worked for him admired. Peter Kurdock, a former staffer at Americans United who worked for Lautenberg for almost two years, said: “He truly cared about policy over politics, which is very rare in Washington.”</p><p>Lautenberg will be missed, and we can only hope that his replacement will advocate for church-state separation with the same vigor.</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/school-prayer">School Prayer</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/faith-based-initiative-government-funding-religious-social-service-providers">The Faith-Based Initiative &amp; Government Funding of Religious Social Service Providers</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/vouchers">Vouchers</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/sen-frank-lautenberg">Sen. Frank Lautenberg</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/president-ronald-reagan">President Ronald Reagan</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/president-george-w-bush">President George W. Bush</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/faith-based-initiative">faith-based initiative</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/pat-robertson">Pat Robertson</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/david-barton">David Barton</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/sen-bill-frist">Sen. Bill Frist</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/sen-jeff-sessions">Sen. Jeff Sessions</a></span></div></div>Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:33:09 +0000Simon Brown8633 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/a-tribute-to-frank-lautenberg-new-jersey-senator-was-strong-supporter-of#commentsAn Insider’s Confession: David Kuo Blew The Whistle On ‘Faith-Based’ Fraudhttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/an-insider-s-confession-david-kuo-blew-the-whistle-on-faith-based-fraud
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">David Kuo exposed the partisan politics behind the &#039;faith-based&#039; initiative. </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>There is some sad news to report today: On Friday, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/j-david-kuo-onetime-leader-of-bushs-faith-based-initiative-dies-at-44/2013/04/06/24e9cd6a-987e-11e2-97cd-3d8c1afe4f0f_story.html">David Kuo died</a>. He was only 44 and had been battling an aggressive brain tumor.</p><p>You might remember Kuo from the George W. Bush presidency. He came to Washington in 2001 as an idealistic conservative foot soldier hoping to help the poor through the “faith-based” initiative. Two years later, he left disillusioned, convinced that the initiative was little more than a partisan political stunt.</p><p> In 2006, Kuo penned <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Tempting-Faith-Inside-Political-Seduction/dp/0743287134/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1365426595&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=david+kuo">a book </a>about his experiences titled <em>Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction</em>. Its revelations were explosive. Kuo maintained that the initiative was cynically manipulated by White House operatives in 2002 and 2004 to help the Republican Party solidify control of Congress.</p><p>Kuo, who was the number two man in the faith-based office, was privy to many of these discussions. He <a href="https://www.au.org/church-state/december-2006-church-state/featured/loss-of-faith">detailed one meeting</a> with James Towey, then director of the faith-based office, and Ken Mehlman, then White House political director. The three discussed ways to use the initiative to excite religious voters.</p><p>“We laid out a plan whereby we would hold ‘roundtable events’ for threatened incumbents with faith and community leaders,” Kuo wrote. “Our office would do the work, using the aura of our White House power to get a diverse group of faith and community leaders to a ‘nonpartisan’ event discussing how best to help poor people in their area. Though the Republican candidate would host the roundtable, it wouldn’t be a campaign event. The member of Congress was just taking time away from his or her campaign to serve the community. It would be the perfect event.”</p><p>There was one problem: The events were really about helping endangered GOP candidates, not the poor. White House strategists had drawn up a list of 20 House and Senate targets, among them Saxby Chambliss in Georgia, Wayne Allard in Colorado and Tim Hutchinson in Ark­ansas, all seeking Senate seats. House candidates included Melissa Hart in Pennsylvania, Shelley Cap­ito in West Virginia, John Shimkus in Illinois and Anne Northup in Kentucky.</p><p>Towey subsequently appeared alongside many of the candidates at the events, and during the “conferences,” local clergy were led to believe that they could qualify for significant government grants. A special outreach was made to African-American clergy.</p><p>On Election Day, 19 of the 20 targeted candidates won.</p><p>Kuo’s book merely confirmed a pattern that Americans United had picked up on 2002. We noticed that Towey was appearing alongside a lot of GOP House candidates who were in tight races and that he seemed to be implying that if the Republican were elected, faith-based money would follow. <em>Church &amp; State</em> ran an <a href="https://www.au.org/church-state/october-2002-church-state/featured/faith-based-flim-flam">investigative story </a>on the matter in October of 2002. </p><p>In his book, Kuo wrote that White House officials were happy to take the votes of right-wing evangelicals – even if they thought little of them.</p><p>“For most of the rest of the White House staff, evangelical leaders were people to be tolerated, not people who were truly welcomed,” Kuo wrote. “No group was more eye-rolling about Christians than the political affairs shop. They knew ‘the nuts’ were politically invaluable, but that was the extent of their usefulness.”</p><p>Continued Kuo, “National Chris­tian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as ‘ridiculous,’ ‘out of control,’ and just plain ‘goofy.’ The leaders spent much time lauding the president, but they were never shrewd enough to do what Billy Graham had done three decades before, to wonder whether they were just being used. They were.”</p><p>Kuo might have thought his book would serve as an alarm to the Religious Right and perhaps a warning that they were being used. That didn’t happen. So beholden to Bush were Religious Right leaders that they quickly aimed at Kuo and opened fire.</p><p>“I feel sorry for him, because once you do something like this, you get your 15 minutes in the spotlight, but then after that nobody will touch you,” Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told <em>The Washington Post</em>. “These kiss-and-tell books do more damage to the author than to the people they attack.”</p><p>Perkins’ boss, James Dobson, then of Focus on the Family, called Kuo’s book “a mix of sour grapes and political timing.” The late Charles Colson of Prison Fellowship said he was “shocked and disappointed by what appears to be political timing to sell a book, and a very unfair characterization of the parties involved.”</p><p>Asked about Kuo’s allegations by <em>The Wall Street Journal</em>, longtime Religious Right strategist Paul Weyrich, who has since died, was dismissive.</p><p>“David Kuo?” he mocked. “Who is he? The person at the White House I talk to every week is Tim Goeglein. I know he does not ridicule us.”</p><p>To answer Weyrich’s question, David Kuo was a man who wanted to do some good for the country by assisting those most in need: the poor. When he saw that the faith-based initiative wasn’t about that, he blew the whistle.</p><p>Kuo had more integrity in his little finger than the leaders of the Religious Right have in their entire bodies. His early death is tragic, and he will be missed.</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/faith-based-initiative-government-funding-religious-social-service-providers">The Faith-Based Initiative &amp; Government Funding of Religious Social Service Providers</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/david-kuo">David Kuo</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/tony-perkins">Tony Perkins</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/paul-weyrich">Paul Weyrich</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/charles-colson">Charles Colson</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/james-dobson">James Dobson</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/faith-based-initiative">faith-based initiative</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/president-george-w-bush">President George W. Bush</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/ken-mehlman">Ken Mehlman</a></span></div></div>Mon, 08 Apr 2013 14:19:46 +0000Rob Boston8268 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/an-insider-s-confession-david-kuo-blew-the-whistle-on-faith-based-fraud#commentsThe Year That Was: Major Church-State Developments From 2012 https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/the-year-that-was-major-church-state-developments-from-2012
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Here are some major church-state stories from the past 12 months. </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>The end of the year is a time for lists. You’re probably seeing a lot of them – “25 Best Books of 2012,” “10 Overlooked Movies,” “What’s Hot and What’s Not” or whatever.</p><p>Along those lines, here’s a list of the Top Ten Church-State Stories from 2012 (listed in no particular order):</p><p><strong>Supreme Court upholds ‘ministerial exception’: </strong>In a closely watched case dealing with employment rights, the Supreme Court in January granted religious groups the power to ignore anti-discrimination laws in certain situations. The narrow decision in <em>Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission</em><em> </em>dealt mainly with clergy and <a href="https://au.org/media/press-releases/americans-united-expresses-disappointment-over-supreme-court-ruling-granting">left unanswered</a> questions about the rights of non-ministerial employees in religious settings.</p><p><strong>Kentucky</strong><strong> legislators approve tax support for fundamentalist ‘Ark Park’: </strong>Continuing a trend of offering tax support to creationist-themed tourist attractions, Kentucky lawmakers engineered $40 million in tax incentives to a theme park based on the biblical story of Noah’s Ark. The park is scheduled to include a 500-foot-by-75-foot wooden ark, live animals, a walled city modeled on those found in ancient times, a children’s interactive play area, a replica of the Tower of Babel with exhibits, a 500-seat “5-D” special-effects theater, an aviary and a replica of a first-century Middle Eastern village. Scientists and advocates of church-state separation <a href="https://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/sinking-ship-kentucky-%E2%80%9Cark-park%E2%80%9D-faces-funding-shortfalls-delayed">criticized the decision</a> to give public support to an enterprise promoting fundamentalist ideology. Despite the aid package, the park remains on the drawing board, as private fund-raising by the park’s sponsor, Answers in Genesis, hasn’t met expectations.</p><p><strong>The White House attempts to clarify the ‘faith-based’ initiative – sort of: </strong>In April, President Barack Obama issued a “guidance” designed to clarify some of the issues surrounding his version of the “faith-based” initiative. Unfortunately, it fell short of those goals. The 50-page guidance requires faith-based agencies that operate government-subsidized social services to generally exclude religion from publicly funded activities and to provide help to all who need it regardless of their beliefs about religion. But it also allows these agencies to offer publicly funded services in locations festooned with religious art, icons and scripture passages, allows the agencies to invite clients to attend privately funded religious events and does not require separate accounts for public and private funds. Most disappointingly, the document failed to discuss the pressing issue of religious discrimination in tax-funded faith-based programs. “This guidance makes some significant improvements to the Bush faith-based initiative, but it falls far short of what it ought to do,” <a href="https://blog.au.org/church-state/june-2012-church-state/people-events/obama-faith-based-guidance-is-inadequate-says">said Barry W. Lynn</a>, Americans United executive director. “This fails to fully protect the interests of Americans who need help from their government or the rights of taxpayers who don’t want their money subsidizing religion.”</p><p><strong>Religious Right ‘Christian nation’ propagandist David Barton implodes. </strong>Texas Religious Right historical revisionist David Barton finally met his match this year. Barton has been peddling bogus “Christian nation” views of U.S. history since at least the early 1990s, mainly through self-published books and DVDs. In 2012, he got a shot at the big time when Thomas Nelson, a publishing firm that produces a lot of evangelical works, agreed to publish a Barton tome called <em>The Jefferson Lies</em>. The book immediately <a href="https://www.au.org/church-state/october-2012-church-state/featured/the-barton-lies-debunked">came under fire</a> from a group of conservative Christian professors, led by Warren Throckmorton and Michael Coulter of Grove City College. Throckmorton, Coulter and others documented the tome’s many errors – most of which related to Barton’s distortions of Thomas Jefferson’s views on church-state separation and his personal religious views. Thomas Nelson subsequently withdrew the tome.</p><p><strong>Americans United wins key victories against government-sponsored prayer: </strong>In 2012, Americans United won several important legal victories against official prayer before meetings of government bodies. A federal appeals court struck down recitation of such prayers in <a href="https://www.au.org/church-state/march-2012-church-state/featured/the-forsyth-saga-final-chapter">Forsyth County</a>, N.C., and similar practices of official prayer also fell in <a href="https://www.au.org/church-state/november-2012-church-state/people-events/delaware-county-council-agrees-to-end-use-of">Sussex County</a>, Del., and <a href="https://www.au.org/church-state/julyaugust-2012-church-state/featured/church-state-odyssey-in-greece">Greece, N.Y</a>.</p><p><strong>Louisiana</strong><strong>’s voucher program challenged in court: </strong>Prodded by Gov. Bobby Jindal, legislators in Louisiana approved a wide-ranging private school voucher plan. Media reports indicated that many of the schools taking part are fundamentalist academies or financially ailing Roman Catholic institutions. Unfortunately, Louisiana’s constitution was altered in the 1970s and no longer strongly supports church-state separation. Parents and teachers’ unions <a href="https://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/voucher-victory-louisiana-court-strikes-down-private-school-aid-scheme">challenged the plan</a> in court on other grounds and won a victory in state court. There will be an appeal, but for now the first round goes to voucher foes.</p><p><strong>Anti-Islam measures fail in court: </strong>Oklahoma voters approved a state constitutional amendment to ban Islamic law in the Sooner State, a move that was widely interpreted as a mean-spirited exercise in Islamophobia. The matter was challenged in court, and in 2012 a federal appeals court <a href="http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2012/01/10th-circuit-says-oklahoma-anti-sharia.html">declared the amendment</a> null and void. In Tennessee, efforts to prevent a Muslim group from building a mosque also failed. After years of litigation, harassment and threats, the mosque <a href="http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/10/after-attacks-and-threats-tennessee-mosque-opens/">opened in August</a>.</p><p><strong>Illegal pulpit endorsements reach new levels: </strong>A record number of pastors openly violated federal law and endorsed candidates from the pulpit this year. Many of the endorsements were in conservative churches and were designed to help Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. A number of Catholic bishops joined the crusade, issuing letters that in some cases went so far as to warn church members that failing to vote for anti-abortion, anti-gay candidates could damn their eternal souls to hell. Despite this wave of blatant law-breaking, the Internal Revenue Service appeared to be <a href="https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/the-irs-and-church-electioneering-enforce-the-law-already">sitting on the sidelines</a>.</p><p><strong>Religious conservatives launch new attack on birth control: </strong>Religious Right organizations and the Catholic bishops filed a slew of lawsuits designed to <a href="https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/batty-over-birth-control-setting-the-record-straight-about-the">nullify a regulation</a> from the Obama administration that requires most employers in the nation to contract with insurance companies that provide no-cost birth control. Although houses of worship are exempt from the mandate, the Religious Right and the bishops say that doesn’t go far enough and are demanding a broad “conscience objection” that would permit virtually any employer to deny his or her employees access to birth control. A number of courts have ruled on the matter, resulting in split decisions. The question seemed destined to land in the Supreme Court.</p><p><strong>Religious Right dealt severe blow on Election Day: </strong>Religious Right groups and their allies in the Roman Catholic hierarchy went over the top to elect Mitt Romney and other Republicans on Election Day and <a href="https://www.au.org/church-state/december-2012-church-state/featured/religion-politics-and-election-2012">failed miserably</a>. Obama won re-election easily, and Democrats not only retained control of the Senate, they gained seats. In addition, marriage equality was approved in three states, and Minnesota voters turned back an effort to add a provision barring same-sex marriage to the state constitution. Voters in Florida also rejected a gambit – spearheaded largely by the Catholic bishops – to strip the strong church-state separation provisions from the state constitution. </p><p>It was a busy year. I suspect 2013 is going to be just as action-packed, so stay involved and visit <a href="http://www.au.org/">au.org</a> for regular updates. Happy New Year!</p><p>P.S. "The Wall of Separation" will be on hiatus until Jan. 2.</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/faith-based-initiative-government-funding-religious-social-service-providers">The Faith-Based Initiative &amp; Government Funding of Religious Social Service Providers</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/vouchers">Vouchers</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/prayer-at-government-events-and-legislative-meetings">Prayer at Government Events and Legislative Meetings</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/workplace-discrimination-exemptions-religious-practice">Discrimination, Exemptions &amp; Religious Practice in the Workplace</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/religious-refusals-and-rfra">Religious Refusals and RFRA</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/religious-groups%E2%80%99-involvement-in-candidate-elections">Religious Groups’ Involvement in Candidate Elections</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/descriptions-and-activities-religious-right-groups">Descriptions and Activities of Religious Right Groups</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/vouchers">vouchers</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/faith-based-initiative">faith-based initiative</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/david-barton">David Barton</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/bobby-jindal">Bobby Jindal</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/internal-revenue-service-irs">Internal Revenue Service (IRS)</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/pulpit-politicking">Pulpit Politicking</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/religious-right-0">Religious Right</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/birth-control-mandate">birth control mandate</a></span></div></div>Mon, 31 Dec 2012 16:55:29 +0000Rob Boston7870 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/the-year-that-was-major-church-state-developments-from-2012#commentsWhite House releases 'faith-based' guidelineshttps://www.au.org/media/in-the-news/white-house-releases-faith-based-guidelines
<div class="field field-name-field-news-source field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">The Washington Post</div></div></div>Tue, 01 May 2012 14:36:12 +0000Joseph L. Conn7051 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/media/in-the-news/white-house-releases-faith-based-guidelines#commentsGood Question, Not-So-Good Answer: Obama’s Muddled Response On ‘Faith-Based’ Job Biashttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/good-question-not-so-good-answer-obama%E2%80%99s-muddled-response-on-%E2%80%98faith-based%E2%80%99
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">No faith-based organization is required to accept tax money. Those that choose to do so must first agree to abide by a few common-sense rules, including giving up their right to discriminate.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>With all of the talk about the U.S. debt ceiling, it’s sometimes easy to forget that other issues are out there. Even as he attempts to strike a deal to keep America solvent, President Barack Obama continues to address other topics.</p>
<p>Last week, Obama appeared before at crowd at the University of Maryland for a town hall meeting. There were questions about the debt crisis, but <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20082217-503544.html">the very first query</a> Obama got was something different. Amanda Knief, government relations manager for the Secular Coalition for America, decided to ask Obama a question about the faith-based initiative.</p>
<p><strong> “</strong>I’m an atheist,” Knief said. “And in Zanesville, Ohio, in 2008, you asserted that no organization receiving taxpayer funds would be able to discriminate in hiring or firing based on a person’s religion. However, you have not rescinded the executive order that permits that type of discrimination. In a time of economic hardship, when it is difficult for a person to get a job based on her skills, what would you say to a woman who has been denied employment because of her religion, or lack of religious beliefs, by taxpayer-funded organizations?”</p>
<p>Good question.</p>
<p>“Well, this is a very difficult issue, but a more narrow one than I think might be implied,” Obama said. “It’s very straightforward that people shouldn't be discriminated against for race, gender, sexual orientation or religious affiliation. What has happened is that there has been a carve-out, dating back to President Clinton’s presidency, for religious organizations in their hiring for particular purposes.</p>
<p>“This is always a tricky part of the First Amendment,” Obama continued. “On the one hand, the First Amendment ensures that there is freedom of religion. On the other hand, we want to make sure that religious bodies are abiding by general laws. Where this issue has come up is in fairly narrow circumstances where for example you’ve got a faith-based organization that’s providing certain services they consider part of their mission, to be promoting their religious views, but they may have a daycare center associated with the organization, or they may be running a food pantry.”</p>
<p>Obama went on to say, “I think we’ve struck the right balance so far, but this is something we continue to be in dialogue with faith-based organizations about to try to make sure that their hiring practices are as open and inclusive as possible.” (You can see the full exchange <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9xgqidBoQU">here</a>.)</p>
<p>Knief wasn’t satisfied, telling reporters that Obama “didn’t address the most egregious aspect of this policy: that religious discrimination is occurring on the taxpayer’s dime. Discrimination is wrong in all forms, especially when it is being funded by taxpayers. I would urge the president to reconsider the statements he made today, and stick to his campaign promise of 2008 by signing an executive order barring any taxpayer funding of religious organizations that discriminate on the basis of belief.” (Full disclosure: I know Amanda and serve as an advisor to the Secular Coalition.)</p>
<p>I understand why Amanda was disappointed with Obama’s answer. The fact is, no one disputes the right of religious groups to discriminate in their purely religious functions. Those functions, being religious, aren’t tax funded. The problem is, some religious groups are taking tax money to run social service programs that are designed to serve the public (soup kitchens, homeless shelters, employment agencies, drug and alcohol programs, etc.) yet still insist on the right to hire and fire based on religion. Why they need to do that is a mystery. These programs, being tax funded, cannot legally promote religion.</p>
<p>This issue is not nearly as “tricky” as the president would imply. No faith-based organization is required to accept tax money. Those that choose to do so must first agree to abide by a few common-sense rules, including giving up their right to discriminate. Religious groups that believe discrimination is paramount can refrain from taking part in government-run programs.</p>
<p>Everybody wins.</p>
<p>The good news is that more organizations are paying attention to this issue. In fact, Equality Matters has <a href="http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201107260004">a great story</a> about it today featuring some choice quotes by Americans United Executive Director Barry W. Lynn. Obama may wish this issue would go away, but it’s not.</p>
<p>Obama had it right in 2008 when he spoke in Zanesville. I wish he would find his way back to that sensible position, and I’m glad Amanda decided to press him on it.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20082217-503544.html"><br /></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/amanda-knief">Amanda Knief</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/barack-obama">Barack Obama</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/faith-based-hiring-discrimination">Faith-based hiring discrimination</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/faith-based-initiative">faith-based initiative</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/secular-coalition-america">Secular Coalition for America</a></span></div></div>Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:53:03 +0000Rob Boston2216 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/good-question-not-so-good-answer-obama%E2%80%99s-muddled-response-on-%E2%80%98faith-based%E2%80%99#commentsFaith-Based Frenzy: Kansas Governor Preaches Religion As Solution To Social Problems https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/faith-based-frenzy-kansas-governor-preaches-religion-as-solution-to-social
<a href="/about/people/bathija">Sandhya Bathija</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Since Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback’s first day in office, he has made it clear that he no problems blurring the church-state line.</p>
<p>In January, he all but turned his swearing-in ceremony into a religious revival, and he <a href="http://blog.au.org/2011/01/13/a-tale-of-two-states-kansas-opts-for-government-sponsored-religion-while-hawaii-respects-diversity/">noted</a> his intention to use religion as a way to help the state face its economic and social problems. It now seems those plans are well on their way.</p>
<p>According to the <em>Kansas City Star</em>, Brownback has <a href="http://www.kansascity.com/2011/06/24/2972981/gov-brownback-starts-faith-based.html#ixzz1QUwbKqVM">thrown his support</a> behind a “faith-based” program intended to make sure parolees don’t go back to prison. Called Out4Life, the approach was developed in 2007 by Prison Fellowship, an evangelical Christian organization.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.out4life.com/about-out4life">Out4Life</a> doesn’t deny that it proselytizes. Pat Nolan, a vice president with Prison Fellowship, told the newspaper that Out4Life does “give [parolees] the goodness of the gospel,” but he insisted that they don’t have to accept Christ in order to receive help.</p>
<p>Americans United’s Senior Litigation Counsel Alex J. Luchenitser told the <em>Star</em> that Brownback is heading into constitutionally dubious territory.</p>
<p>“The states need to provide nonreligious re-entry programming that all inmates can comfortably take part in,” AU’s Luchenitser said.</p>
<p>Luchenitser knows this issue well. When Prison Fellowship took public funds to run an inmate counseling program in Iowa a few years ago, he argued the case that successfully challenged the program. (<a href="http://www.au.org/what-we-do/lawsuits/archives/americans-united-v-prison.html"><em>Americans Un<em>ited v. Prison Fellowship Ministries</em></em></a>)</p>
<p>Prisoners should not be pressured by the state to listen to a religious lecture or participate in any religious activities, period. But Brownback doesn’t seem to care much about that constitutional concern and appears to be a on a crusade to impose religion on all Kansans.</p>
<p>Earlier this year, Brownback <a href="http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2011/05/kansas-governor-pushes-for.html">appointed</a> Rob Siedlecki as secretary of the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services. Siedlecki served as senior counsel with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Task Force on Faith-Based Initiatives during the George W. Bush administration. Like Brownback, he believes state government should use religion as a tool to address societal problems.</p>
<p>Brownback has also <a href="http://www.kansascity.com/2011/06/12/2944686/the-stars-editorial-brownback.html#ixzz1QUYIr5rX">replaced</a> other top staff members in the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services. Several of these positions, which were once nonpartisan, were replaced by partisan employees being moved in from Washington, D.C., and Florida.</p>
<p>The whole worries state officials, who admit to being uneasy with Brownback’s emphasis on “faith-based” solutions.</p>
<p>"I'm all for religion," said Kansas House Minority Leader Paul Davis (D-Lawrence). "We have to be very careful with the state imposing that on people."</p>
<p>Brownback should be careful, but that is probably too much to hope for. He is a longtime Religious Right ally and often appeared at far-right events. While serving in the U.S. Senate, he was a resident of the infamous “<a href="http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2009/09/behind-the-green-door.html">C Street House</a>” and has always been a vocal foe of church-state separation.</p>
<p>In 2005, he <a href="http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2005/02/church-state-sep.html">told</a> the <em>Wichita Eagle </em>that courts have “profoundly misinterpreted” the separation of church and state.</p>
<p>That’s where he has it wrong. The courts have simply held that the Constitution requires the government to remain neutral on religion. Brownback has no business pushing his beliefs on Kansans, including prisoners.</p>
</div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/faith-based-prison-programs">Faith-Based Prison Programs</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/faith-based-initiative">faith-based initiative</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/faith-based-prison-programs">faith-based prison programs</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/kansas">Kansas</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/out4life">Out4Life</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/prison-fellowship">Prison Fellowship</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/sam-brownback">Sam Brownback</a></span></div></div>Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:20:46 +0000Sandhya Bathija2538 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/faith-based-frenzy-kansas-governor-preaches-religion-as-solution-to-social#comments‘Faith-Based’ Fracas: Supreme Court Lets Taxpayer Challenge Go Forward In Kentuckyhttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/%E2%80%98faith-based%E2%80%99-fracas-supreme-court-lets-taxpayer-challenge-go-forward-in
<a href="/about/people/bathija">Sandhya Bathija</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Americans United got some good news yesterday in a “faith-based” funding case that began back in 2000.</p>
<p>The lawsuit was brought on behalf of Alicia Pedreira and other Kentucky taxpayers against the Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children. Using millions in public funds, the sectarian childcare agency has been indoctrinating children in religious beliefs and discriminating on religious grounds in employment, firing Pedreira for being a lesbian.</p>
<p>The lawsuit <a href="http://www.au.org/what-we-do/lawsuits/archives/pedreira-v-kentucky-baptist.html">alleged</a> that the use of taxpayer dollars to fund the Baptist Homes is unconstitutional and that the Baptist Home’s anti-gay employment policy violated employment-discrimination statutes.</p>
<p><em>Pedreira v. Kentucky Baptist Home for Children </em>spent the past decade traveling through the legal system. First, the federal district court dismissed both the tax-funding and the employment discrimination claims. Then, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the tax-funding claims. And yesterday, the Supreme Court said it would not hear the case – <a href="http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20110418/NEWS01/304180114/1078/SPORTS11/Supreme-Court-won-t-hear-Kentucky-Baptist-Homes-case?odyssey=nav|head">rejecting</a> an attempted appeal by the Baptist Homes and sending the case back down to the district court for further proceedings, including a possible trial, at last.</p>
<p>This is good news. Now, the 6th Circuit’s ruling will stand. Though the appellate panel dismissed Pedreira’s statutory employment discrimination claims, it upheld state taxpayers’ right to challenge state support for a faith-based agency with a record of indoctrination and job discrimination.</p>
<p>The district court will now determine whether Kentucky acted unconstitutionally by providing government funds to the Baptist Homes for the performance of social services in a sectarian manner.</p>
<p>Even today, the Baptist Homes (which has since changed its name to Sunrise Children’s Services) is funded primarily by Kentucky and federal taxpayer dollars, <a href="http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2009/04/feature.html">receiving</a> more than $100 million in government funds since this case began.</p>
<p>Perhaps, after all these years, the courts will put a stop to this misuse of public resources.</p>
</div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/churches-and-politics">Churches and Politics</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/alicia-pedreira">Alicia Pedreira</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/faith-based-initiative">faith-based initiative</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/government-endorsed-religion">government-endorsed religion</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/kentucky-baptist-home-children">Kentucky Baptist Home for Children</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/public-funding-religion">public funding of religion</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/sunrise-childrens-services">Sunrise Children&#039;s Services</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/us-supreme-court">The U.S. Supreme Court</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/us-supreme-court-0">U.S. Supreme Court</a></span></div></div>Tue, 19 Apr 2011 18:44:12 +0000Sandhya Bathija2523 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/%E2%80%98faith-based%E2%80%99-fracas-supreme-court-lets-taxpayer-challenge-go-forward-in#comments‘Faith-Based’ Furnace?: Houses Of Worship Reap Tax-Funded Windfall From Stimulus Packagehttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/%E2%80%98faith-based%E2%80%99-furnace-houses-of-worship-reap-tax-funded-windfall-from
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">How does it help us all if a church, synagogue or temple gets a new air conditioning system?</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Did you send a contribution to the Castleton United Methodist Church in Indianapolis so it could buy a new heating and cooling system?</p>
<p>You may think you didn’t – but you did. More accurately, your leaders in Washington, D.C., did it for you.</p>
<p><em>Politico</em> <a href="//www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/45897.html#ixzz173xPVYNV">reports today</a> that at least $140 million of the $787 billion stimulus package passed in 2009 ended up in the coffers of “faith-based” groups – and that this was the result of deliberate effort by the administration of President Barack Obama.</p>
<p>“In an aggressive attempt at outreach, federal agencies, in conference calls and online seminars, instructed faith-based groups on how to apply for the grants, and federal officials sometimes stepped in when the state officials who distribute the money were reluctant to spend it on groups associated with churches and other religious establishments,” reported the D.C. newspaper.</p>
<p>Some of the money funded social-service programs and may be legal – if those programs are not saturated with sectarian content and serve a larger public interest.</p>
<p>In Harrisburg, Pa., Christian Churches United of the Tri-County Area received $120,000 in stimulus money to pay for shelter and food for the homeless. Jackie Rucker, executive director of the group, remarked, “It kind of fell from the sky, and it was unbelievable that we had this much extra money.”</p>
<p>Actually it fell out of the taxpayers’ pocket. But as I said, it may be legal if it served a legitimate public (and secular) purpose by helping people in need.</p>
<p>But what is the public, secular purpose of putting new windows in a Roman Catholic school run by the Church of St. Laurence O’Toole in Laramie, Wyo.? How does it help us all if a church, synagogue or temple gets a new air conditioning system?</p>
<p>Some defenders of the payments have argued that such retrofitting does help everyone because it makes houses of worship more energy efficient. But under that logic, the government could tear down an old, drafty church and rebuild it at taxpayer expense.</p>
<p>We have to draw the line somewhere. And for a long time, that line was drawn where private religious interests began. Yes, a church could get a public grant to feed the hungry as long as it fed everyone, regardless of what they believe about God, and didn’t proselytize those in need. But when the church needs a new roof, it’s up to the congregation to raise private funds to pay for that.</p>
<p>As Americans United Executive Director Barry W. Lynn told <em>Politico</em>, “We believe that the heating and cooling of religious institutions is a job for the congregation, not the American taxpayer.”</p>
<p>That used to be a no-brainer. Houses of worship paid for their own upkeep and maintenance. But the steady flow of faith-based dollars (which are really taxpayer dollars) has blurred the line. That’s another reason why these programs are so dangerous.</p>
<p>Back when faith-based funding was first proposed, AU spoke out against it strongly. One of the arguments we raised was that once these funds started to flow, it would become increasingly difficult to control where they went.</p>
<p>Some of AU’s critics sneered that we were employing a “slippery slope” argument. Yes, we were. And now that America is on the slope sliding increasingly toward more and more forms of tax-supported religion, the view is not looking very good.</p>
</div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/barack-obama">Barack Obama</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/faith-based-initiative">faith-based initiative</a></span></div></div>Fri, 03 Dec 2010 17:45:32 +0000Rob Boston2140 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/%E2%80%98faith-based%E2%80%99-furnace-houses-of-worship-reap-tax-funded-windfall-from#commentsMosque Money: New Controversy Erupts Over Proposed Tax Funding Of NYC Facilityhttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/mosque-money-new-controversy-erupts-over-proposed-tax-funding-of-nyc
<a href="/about/people/bathija">Sandhya Bathija</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Just when the hubbub over the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” seemed to be dying down, some new information has come to light.</p>
<p>Back in the summer, when the issue was making headlines, Americans United took a <a href="http://blog.au.org/2010/08/23/respect-and-religious-liberty-a-christian-minister%E2%80%99s-perspective-on-the-nyc-islamic-center-debate/">strong stance</a>: The Islamic Community Center and Mosque, a project known as Park51, was being built with private dollars on private land. The religious group had complied with applicable laws and had every right to build the center; there was no reason for the government to get involved.</p>
<p>But some recent developments have since complicated the matter. According to a <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/11/22/new.york.islamic.center/">report by CNN</a>, the developer of Park51 has requested federal funding through the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation to support the project.</p>
<p>“Park51 has applied for a Lower Manhattan Development Corporation grant,” said Sharif El-Gamal, CEO of SOHO properties, and developer behind the Islamic center. El-Gamal said the money would “In part fund social service programs such as domestic violence programs, Arabic and other foreign language classes, programs and services for homeless veterans, two multi-cultural art exhibits and immigration services.”</p>
<p>For the first time, the controversy over Park51 has become an actual church-state issue. While it’s true the center will be performing some social services and be open to the community, it still contains a mosque and is religious in nature. Taxpayer funds should never go to support the erection of any building used wholly or in part for religious activities.</p>
<p>It does no good to argue that government will only pay for secular activities at the center. There will be a mosque on site where religious activities and worship will occur. All houses of worship should be erected and maintained with private funds. AU would not support the government paying to build half a church, and we won’t support it paying for half of a mosque either.</p>
<p>This is exactly why Americans United has been opposed to the “faith-based” initiative and any other form of government aid to religious groups. For years, Americans United has been struggling to stop the faith-based initiative, which has funneled taxpayer money to religious groups to perform social services with precious little accountability for how and where the money is spent.</p>
<p>Just last week, President Barack Obama <a href="http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/2010/11/obama-executive-order.pdf">issued an executive order</a> that makes some improvements to President George W. Bush’s version of the faith-based initiative. Still, Obama failed to address the issue of whether religious organizations receiving public funds can discriminate in hiring. He also failed to require that religious groups receiving government funds keep the money separate for religious activities from the public money received for social programs.</p>
<p>Barry W. Lynn, AU’s executive director, <a href="http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Lynn101118.pdf">expressed disappointment</a> with Obama’s decision to not touch these issues. In testimony before members of Congress last week, he said it was necessary that houses of worship that seek federal funds form separate incorporated entities to use those funds.</p>
<p>“This is necessary to protect the autonomy and integrity of the religious institution as well as ensure that federal funds are not used for religious purposes,” Lynn said. “The ‘faith-based’ initiative, however, permits public funds to flow directly to houses of worship” into one large pot without any accountability.</p>
<p>To avoid all these constitutional concerns, it will be best if the developer of Park51 uses private dollars to fund the project. Just like all other projects and activities that are religious in nature – whether it involves a temple, synagogue or church – the government (and taxpayer funds) should stay out of it.</p>
</div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/faith-based-initiative">faith-based initiative</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/government-aid-religion">Government aid to religion</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/ground-zero-mosque">Ground Zero mosque</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/lower-manhattan-development-corporation-grant">Lower Manhattan Development Corporation grant</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/obama">obama</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/official-prayer-religious-displays-amp-ceremonial-religion-outside-schools">Official Prayer, Religious Displays &amp;amp; Ceremonial Religion (outside schools)</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/park51">Park51</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/tax-funding-religion">Tax Funding of Religion</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/taxpayer-aid-religion">taxpayer aid of religion</a></span></div></div>Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:36:33 +0000Sandhya Bathija2486 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/mosque-money-new-controversy-erupts-over-proposed-tax-funding-of-nyc#commentsTowey’s Hypocritical Hooey: Bush ‘Faith Czar’ Complains About Politicization Of White House Faith-Based Officehttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/towey%E2%80%99s-hypocritical-hooey-bush-%E2%80%98faith-czar%E2%80%99-complains-about-politicization
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Under James Towey, the White House faith-based office was used to promote Republican candidates in tight House and Senate races. </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p><strong> </strong></p>
<p>James Towey, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives under President George W. Bush, had an opinion piece in <em>The Wall Street Journal</em> recently carping because President Barack Obama has used his administration’s “faith-based” offices to let Americans know about the new health-care law.</p>
<p>Towey says if he had politicized his office that way, Bush would have fired him.</p>
<p>Oh, now that is rich.</p>
<p>The fact is, Towey did politicize the faith-based office. There’s really no room for doubt about that. Under Towey, the faith-based office was used to promote Republican candidates in tight House and Senate races. Towey even appeared at several candidate events.</p>
<p>Steve Benen, a former writer for <em>Church &amp; State</em>, <a href="http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2002/10/faith-based-flim.html">outlined a pattern of partisan politicking</a> by Towey during the 2002 election season. Benen documented how Towey appeared alongside GOP incumbents or challengers in several states, often before African-American audiences. The clear implication was that federal “faith-based” money might dry up if Republicans were not put in office.</p>
<p>In one especially egregious example, Towey appeared by remote video hookup at a seminar on faith-based funding in New Orleans – during a time when Louisiana was the site of a hotly contested U.S. Senate race.</p>
<p>Benen reported that the seminar took on the trappings of a church service: “Two invocational prayers were offered to kick off the event, gospel choirs entertained attendees and some break-out sessions were halted when participants claimed to be receiving words from God.”</p>
<p>(AU’s research formed the basis for <a href="http://articles.sfgate.com/2002-09-15/news/17560421_1_faith-based-initiative-church-and-state-gop-candidates">a story</a> about Towey’s antics that appeared in <em>The Washington Post</em>.)</p>
<p>But you don’t have to take our word for it. In 2006, David Kuo, a former staffer in the faith-based office, penned a memoir about his experiences. Kuo wrote in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Tempting-Faith-Inside-Political-Seduction/dp/0743287134/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1285947658&amp;sr=1-1"><em>Tempting</em> <em>Faith</em></a> that the White House openly sought to use the faith-based office to win votes for the GOP in 2002 and 2004.</p>
<p>Kuo <a href="http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2006/12/loss-of-faith.html">recalled attending</a> one particularly crucial meeting with Towey and Ken Mehlman, White House political director.</p>
<p>“We laid out a plan whereby we would hold ‘roundtable events’ for threatened incumbents with faith and community leaders,” Kuo wrote. “Our office would do the work, using the aura of our White House power to get a diverse group of faith and community leaders to a ‘nonpartisan’ event discussing how best to help poor people in their area. Though the Republican candidate would host the roundtable, it wouldn’t be a campaign event. The member of Congress was just taking time away from his or her campaign to serve the community. It would be the perfect event.”</p>
<p>That sounds a little political, doesn’t it?</p>
<p>Also, let’s not forget the famous words of John DiIulio, Bush’s first faith-based director. After overseeing the office for seven months, DiIulio departed, bitterly <a href="http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2003/01/reign-of-the-may.html">telling</a> <em>Esquire</em> magazine, “What you’ve got is everything – and I mean everything – being run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis.”</p>
<p>And here’s the kicker: What Obama is doing isn’t even remotely like Towey’s partisan stunts. Unlike Towey, the president is not using the faith-based office to shill for candidates. In fact, Obama<a href="http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=39DD0DF0-9E1F-9090-B5F51391A886587D"> simply asked religious leaders</a> and others to help spread the word about some new provisions of the health-care law that are kicking in right now. The faith-based office, which had those contacts, merely set up the call.</p>
<p>Towey’s<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704523604575511920142932674.html"> op-ed </a>is behind the <em>Journal</em>’s subscription wall, but if you Google “Jim Towey faith based” you might be able to see the whole thing. Trust me: It’s a pathetic attempt at revisionist history.</p>
<p>It won’t work. Towey is free to complain about the way Obama is handling the faith-based initiative. But it’s rather hypocritical of him to knock the president for allegedly politicizing the office when it was Towey who pioneered that strategy.</p>
</div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/david-kuo">David Kuo</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/faith-based-initiative">faith-based initiative</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/james-towey">James Towey</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/john-diiulio">John DiIulio</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/president-barack-obama">President Barack Obama</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/steve-benen">Steve Benen</a></span></div></div>Fri, 01 Oct 2010 17:07:25 +0000Rob Boston2119 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/towey%E2%80%99s-hypocritical-hooey-bush-%E2%80%98faith-czar%E2%80%99-complains-about-politicization#comments